Standing Committee G

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Bob Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. I want to clarify some of the points I made during the debate in our previous sitting on clause 48. I was asked whether fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting would apply to juveniles. I replied that they would apply to all people aged 10 and over, but that up to the age of 14 a child would have to know that what they were doing was wrong for a fixed penalty notice to be issued. Unfortunately, I misled the Committee.
 It has come to my attention that the law on criminal responsibility for 10 to 13-year-olds was changed by section 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Prior to that there was indeed a rebuttable presumption that the prosecution needed to prove that the child had mischievous discretion—that is, they knew that what they were doing was seriously wrong. The Committee will be pleased to hear that that presumption no longer exists. I therefore assure hon. Members that under the proposal, fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting can be issued on the same basis to anybody over the age of nine. I am happy to be able to clarify that point.

James Cran: I am sure that the Committee appreciates that act of contrition.Clause 53 Sale of aerosol paint to children

Clause 53 - Sale of aerosol paint to children

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 53, page 39, line 3, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 79, in 
clause 53, page 39, line 3, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'fourteen'.
 Amendment No. 80, in 
clause 53, page 39, line 13, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.
 Amendment No. 81, in 
clause 53, page 39, line 13, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'fourteen'.

Nick Hawkins: First, may I say on the record that we are obliged to the Minister for clarifying the position in relation to clause 48? It is always helpful when Ministers provide such clarification. This Minister always does so, and we are grateful to him.
 As the Committee will have realised, amendment No. 79 is an alternative to amendment No. 78, and amendment No. 81 is an alternative to amendment No. 80. We are concerned about the sale of aerosol paint. We entirely understand that graffiti is a huge problem, as we discussed at our previous sitting, and 
 we do not want to give the impression that we lack understanding of the Government's approach to the matter. We recognise that there is a problem. However, we do not want to cause great difficulties for those who run businesses, especially small do-it-yourself stores, for example. Large DIY multiples may find it easier to deal with new laws and regulations, but Conservative Members, and perhaps Government Members as well, get a lot of letters from many small traders complaining about ever more bureaucratic burdens being imposed on them. 
 We know that changes were made to the law to combat the problem of glue sniffing: many DIY retailers were told that they were no longer allowed to have glue on open shelves; it had to be behind the sales counter to prevent youngsters from getting hold of glue, which can, of course, cause the most tragic deaths. Most DIY retailers I have talked to say that although it was a burden to change the method of selling glue, they understand that there was a safety reason for doing so, because glue sniffing had become such a terrible problem. However, the problem in relation to aerosol paints is not of the same order. We are not talking about something that is life threatening, although we recognise that graffiti is a serious problem. 
 The vast majority of young people who buy aerosol paints do not have bad motives for buying them; they are not going to become graffiti artists. They probably buy them because, for example, they want to help work on their father's car or on a moped or motor bike. To say that all DIY retailers and motoring supply stores will not be allowed to sell aerosol paint to customers who are below a certain age is to use too big a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that every DIY retailer should check the age of customers, because we know that some 14 to 16-year-old boys appear to be a great deal older. We will put small shopkeepers in the same position as licensees of pubs, although we understand that age checks are necessary in respect of alcohol. 
 The Committee needs to consider the appropriate age limit. We have suggested two options: 14 or 16. Both are more reasonable than saying that nobody under the age of 18 can buy aerosol paints. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time, because the point is a simple one, but I anticipate that other members of the Committee, perhaps on both sides, will wish to express their views. We think that the Government have gone somewhat over the top. We recognise that there is a problem, but we do not want to create extra bureaucratic burdens. I hope that the Minister will understand that our approach to the matter is serious. We believe that the Government have got the proposal slightly wrong.

Matthew Green: I, too, thank the Minister for the clarification that he gave at the start of the sitting.
 The sale of aerosol paints is a tricky subject. I represent a constituency where there is almost no problem of graffiti, so my first thought was that a ban on the sale of aerosol paints to young people in my constituency seemed disproportionate. However, I recognise that many hon. Members represent 
 constituencies where there is a considerable problem of graffiti. I had various thoughts about how this difficult problem might be dealt with, including the possibility of giving local authorities the power to make byelaws rather than imposing a countrywide ban, although I realise that the amendments do not address that point. However, there would be problems even with that solution, because one authority might introduce such a byelaw and another might not, so a young person could just cross the street. 
 I understand the problems that the Minister faces, and why he has approached them as he has. However, Liberal Democrat Members have added their names to the two amendments that would set the age limit at 16. The amendment represents an attempt to make the law seem reasonable to the general public. We have joked in the House about the fact that a 17-year-old can own and drive a car but would not be able to buy the paint to repair a scratch on the side of it if the proposed law was passed. I am afraid that the public will see that law as foolish, so I do not think that it is a particularly wise position to adopt. 
 I am sure that many graffiti artists are aged 17 or 18, but we must ensure that the law on the sale of aerosol paints makes sense to those who are not graffiti artists. That is why, after much consideration, because my natural inclination is not to ban, I concluded that 16 would be a more appropriate age limit than 18. The issue has been discussed widely in my party, where there is a wide range of opinions, as there is in all the parties. The Minister is right to try to act on the matter, but I would prefer some sort of sunset clause to be added, because if the legislation does not have much impact, we may have to consider revoking it in future. 
 There are obvious concerns about some who is over the age limit buying aerosol paint and handing it to someone younger. That often happens with alcohol. There are several such problems. I realise why the Minister is trying to tackle them, but we must ensure that the law is respected and makes sense to people. Most of the public believe that the age limit of 18 is too high. Sixteen is far more appropriate, and setting that in legislation will make more sense to members of the public and make the law more likely to be obeyed.

Siobhain McDonagh: I rise to oppose the amendment. We do not want the law to be laughed at as it is now. If the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) does not have a problem with graffiti in his constituency, I shall be delighted to show him around mine so that he can see the problem that we have. A year ago, I would never have thought that the Government or I would suggest banning the sale of spray paints. It appears to be an extreme thing to do, until one discovers the real problems and the harm that graffiti causes to local neighbourhoods and communities.
 I live in the London borough of Merton, and my constituency covers half of it. The local authority recently carried out detailed research into the effectiveness of community wardens. It considered the relationship between graffiti and people's fear of 
 leaving their home because of the fear of crime, and found a strong correlation between the two. It also considered shops that operated voluntary bans on the sale of spray paints to under-18s. It found that fewer than four weeks later, all 26 of the stores that had agreed to be part of the scheme were selling spray paints to children as young as eight or nine. 
 I do not believe that people who sell spray paints want young people to produce graffiti, but we must make people understand what a problem it is for their neighbourhood. Cleaning graffiti away is not done for free. Local authorities spend about £14 million a year removing graffiti, with varying degrees of success.

Caroline Flint: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent report that showed that a huge number of older citizens are afraid to leave their home, even though crime has fallen in some areas? Does she agree that part of the problem is the environment outside people's homes? Even if crime has fallen, graffiti, litter and general degradation of the neighbourhood disproportionately affect people's sense of safety and security.

Siobhain McDonagh: I agree absolutely. We sometimes miss that point in our debates. As well as elderly people, young people can feel frightened and intimidated by the sight of their local environment. They might not participate in tagging or regard it as a good thing, but they are fearful that if they do not pretend to part of that culture, they will be excluded or intimidated by their friends. I am sorry that we have reached this point, but I cannot see an alternative. I would go so far as to say that we should simply stop selling spray paints and glass cutters to ordinary members of the public like me, because the problem has become so great.
 At the moment, we expect the poorest people in our communities to pay to remove graffiti. More people live in lower-band council tax properties than higher-band properties and they bear the brunt of paying council tax to have graffiti removed. Other options have been tried, but none have worked. I am not making a party political point and do not intend to make one. I am making a point on behalf of people who are involved and concerned about civic society and democracy. We must get these small things right, otherwise people will stop voting in droves. If we cannot fix it so that their streets are clean, how can they have faith in our ability to fix the bigger things? The measure may appear to be draconian but, having considered all the options, I do not believe that there is an effective alternative.

James Paice: Like the hon. Member for Ludlow, I can say that graffiti is not a serious problem in my constituency, although it is found in some parts of it. However, after 16 years as a Member of Parliament and having spent a large part of that time in London, I cannot help but realise that my constituency is not typical in that respect.
 Large parts of the country suffer seriously from graffiti. My concern about the Government's proposed method of resolving the problem is that it does two things that reflect completely the wrong approach. 
 First—I realise that this is a partisan point, but during all my time in the House, the Labour party has argued that we must not be old fogies and that we should understand young people and represent them—the Bill treats everyone under 18 as a potential graffiti artist. The proposal is extremely draconian—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) used that word—in suggesting that everyone who buys aerosol paint will commit criminal damage. Graffiti is already a crime, and I find the approach of condemning all young people unacceptable. 
 Whatever our views on individual aspects of the Bill, we know that it is designed to deal with young people who are causing a problem, However, it is not about dealing with the entire age group, as the clause does. The clause affects everyone under the age of 18. It says that they cannot buy aerosol paint because they might go out and damage property with graffiti. That is not only draconian, but it goes in completely the wrong direction and gives entirely the wrong message to young people. We are constantly urged by representatives of young people not to brand them all as hooligans and potential criminals, yet the clause does precisely that. 
 Secondly, the clause does not deal with the symptom or the cause of the problem; it deals with a side issue. The real issue is not the sale of aerosol paints, but respect for other people's property and public buildings. Schools and parental responsibility are important, but I believe passionately that that respect is not forthcoming because there is no one on the streets. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who has spent a lot of time investigating this issue, referred to street wardens. I am not a huge fan of wardens compared with regular police officers, but they are a presence on the street. 
 The approach that we should take to graffiti is not to ban the instrument of its making, but to have a presence on the street. People will not spray paint on walls if they think that a policeman or even an environmental health officer is about to come around the corner—on Tuesday we agreed to a clause that gives environmental health officers the power to issue fixed penalty notices; the Minister referred to it in his point of order. The real way to deal with graffiti is to ensure that people know that they risk getting caught. 
 I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is not with us this morning, because his theme throughout our proceedings has been that the Committee must ensure that the measures in the Bill are enforced. The Minister is familiar with the Opposition's refrain that many of the measures would not be necessary if existing measures were enforced. The argument comes down to the fact that if the measures are not enforced, they are pointless. The way to deal with the problem is to enforce the existing measures and use the new fixed penalty notices. That would deal with the criminals, potential criminals, troublemakers or whatever one wants to call them, without branding an entire age group as potential criminals.

Caroline Flint: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that under-18s are not allowed to purchase
 certain goods under the law governing glue substances. The items that we are discussing are provided in similar stores, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is that many under-18s may, in innocent circumstances, want to buy them. Legislators decided that because of the problems involved with glue substances, the law should apply to under-18s for the common good. Surely the law should be consistent in this area?

James Paice: I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point, because it shows an unbelievable jump of logic on the part of the Government and their supporters. Banning the sale of adhesives and glues, like banning the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, is done for the sake of young people's health. That is totally outwith the debate about property damage and graffiti. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would understand that.
 All hon. Members understand and support the principle behind banning things to protect young people's health, but this debate is not protecting their health; it is about graffiti. That problem undoubtedly seriously affects society, but is not in the same league as protecting young people from the horrors of substance abuse, which we have all witnessed over the years. That abuse is dreadful and it is right that we have introduced measures to protect young people, but I cannot understand how the hon. Lady can include that and graffiti in the same argument. They are leagues apart in the importance of their effect on young people.

Caroline Flint: I totally understand the issues surrounding tobacco, glue sniffing and consumption of alcohol. The age limits that apply to those substances are applied to protect young people's health, but we are talking about the well-being of communities. Part of the reason why we are discussing antisocial behaviour is the disproportionate impact that petty vandalism has on communities. It contributes to the ill health of many people in those communities who live every day with that blight on their homes and local environment.

James Paice: The hon. Lady is right about the impact of the environment on communities. I said that a few minutes ago in reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. The record shows that my Front-Bench colleagues and I have constantly talked about the broken windows theory, which is that if environments become run down, everything else will run down with them: criminality will increase and people's fear of going out will worsen. We all know that it is all part of a cycle.
 I agree that it is important to clean up the physical environment. I am arguing not that that does not need to be done, but that the way in which the Government propose to do it is wrong. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, banning the sale of spray paints to under-18s is massively out of proportion. I believe that the hon. Gentleman referred to my speech on Second Reading in which I ridiculed the ban because of all the other things that young people can do, such as marry—

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: In a second. The hon. Gentleman may or may not be about to refer to my speech, but I shall give way in a moment. I ridiculed the ban because there are so many other things that young people can do when they are under 18. The ban is completely out of balance.

Matthew Green: I did hear the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he referred to the ban. I, too, referred to those matters in my speech earlier in the debate.

James Paice: My sincere apologies. It is now clearly on the record that the hon. Gentleman and I think alike, at least on this issue.
 As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, a young person may drive a car at 17 but that—

Shona McIsaac: They should not.

James Paice: The hon. Lady's remark should be placed on the record, because if that is the attitude of today's Labour party, we have a serious problem in politics. To be polite to the hon. Lady, she is closer to the age group that we are discussing than some of us, and if that is her attitude, it is horrendous. Young people can buy a car at 17—

Mark Francois: And drive it.

James Paice: And drive it, as my hon. Friend says. That causes far more damage to life, let alone anything else, than all the other things that we have been discussing. It therefore seems completely out of balance to ban the purchase of a small item that is used for repairs, even though it has the potential to be used to cause environmental damage.

Shona McIsaac: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the comment I made. I have long been concerned about the number of young people—17-year-olds—who lose their lives in road traffic accidents. The hon. Gentleman well knows, because he alluded to it, that that is a particularly serious issue. That is what provoked my remark from a sedentary position. There have been very serious accidents in my constituency, and just this week some young people lost their lives. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me.

James Cran: Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to get that justification out. I realise that a general principle is involved and I have listened to discussion of it for some time, but I do not want to hear justifications for every occasion on which this, that or the next age group is allowed to do this, that or the next thing. We must return to the subject of the debate, which is the sale of aerosol paint to children.

James Paice: The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has placed on the record the background to her views, and I accept that. As she rightly says, far too many young people are killed in road traffic accidents.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one difficulty with banning one item is that other items can still be used for the same purposes? I am thinking, for example, of marker pens. I wonder what other products might be developed to get round a ban.

James Paice: The hon. Lady is perfectly correct. A little of the research that I did before the debate indicates that there are many items that are not purposely designed as aerosol paints, but which produce an aerosol coloured spray. According to my reading of the legislation, those items would not be covered and would still be freely available, as the hon. Lady says. Even if people want a ban, the Government have not produced a belt-and-braces provision.
 I have one final point in support of the amendment. It will be obvious from what I have said that my overall belief is that ideally the provision should not be in the Bill. However, I have taken a realistic approach throughout our proceedings and I have accepted that the Government are determined to do something along those lines. I therefore support the principle that we should reduce the age limit to the age of adulthood, which is 16— 
Shona McIsaac indicated dissent.

James Paice: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is generally recognised that 16 is the age at which legal contracts become binding. That is the most critical point. It is also the age at which people can get married, but I will not tempt you, Mr. Cran—not that I am suggesting that you were tempted when you were 16.
 I want to touch on the Government's volte-face. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has been pursuing the issue of graffiti properly and respectably for some time. I know that she will return to the subject when she speaks to her new clauses. In an Adjournment debate that she initiated last year, she quoted a reply from the Minister, which I shall quote now. She advocated a ban on spray paints and marker pens. The Minister said: 
''Such a measure, although initially attractive, may penalise those who do have a legitimate reason for purchasing these products. It is also unlikely to deter the determined graffiti artists from obtaining them and continuing their criminal activity and it is hoped that retailers would as a matter of course give consideration to those to whom they sell such products.''—[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1136.]
 I am sure that the Minister will tell us what happened on the Damascene road from where he was 10 months ago to where we have reached today.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: If the hon. Lady wants to defend her hon. Friend the Minister, I am sure that he will welcome all the support he can get.

Siobhain McDonagh: My hon. Friend was wrong then and he is right now—[Laughter.] We take great pleasure in someone who repents. I completely understand how people view decisions about problems of antisocial behaviour, but I do not go on about them just because I want something to go on about. I do so because they trouble my constituents, many of whom are voiceless and vulnerable. Graffiti has become one such problem. My hon. Friend the Minister is now aware that we have tried many voluntary codes that simply have not worked.

James Paice: In no way am I detracting from the hon. Lady's proper determination to dramatically reduce—
 it would be foolish to say eliminate—the problem of graffiti. I respect that determination and support the objective, as I hope I have made clear. However, I remain of the view that the clause is not the way to do it. Far more officers—I do not wish to be controversial about the type of officers—on the streets would have stronger and more beneficial effects.
 I return to the Adjournment debate to which I referred and to the Government's stance on the matter. In reply to the hon. Lady, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), for whom I have great respect, said: 
''My hon. Friend made her case rather persuasively. The measures in the London Local Authorities Bill, if enacted, could provide a useful pilot for determining the effectiveness of such an approach and whether we should be seeking to extend it further.''——[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 1139, c. 5678.]
 It appears that the hon. Lady had made progress in her efforts to persuade, which is perfectly respectable. Clause 15 of the London Local Authorities Bill bans the sale of spray paints, but does not refer to the measure as a pilot in London; nevertheless, the Minister clearly said that it could provide a useful pilot. That Bill is still before Parliament—it has not yet passed through all its stages. There has not been a pilot, and dealing with London would deal with a significant part of the UK, but already the Government are ignoring their own statement about pilots and going for broke with what they propose in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. 
 I ask the Minister to reflect on whether everybody under 18 should be branded as a potential graffiti artist or some other form of menace—not all graffiti can be classified as art. The Government have changed their stance. I could wax more lyrical and quote many more examples of what they have said on the issue, but suffice it to say that they have now done a complete volte-face and decided to ban throughout the country the sale of aerosol paint to anyone under the age of 18. That is massively excessive. The problem could be dealt with in other ways. 
 I hope that the Government will at least think about the issue and recognise the disproportionality of banning the sale of the item to anyone under the age of 18. At that age, most young people consider themselves to be adults and are legally participating in a range of activities that everyone else considers to be adult activities. To say that they cannot buy a tin of spray paint gives all the wrong messages.

John Randall: I rise to echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I sometimes regard myself as a bit of a puritan, more so than some of my hon. Friends. I am often accused of banning things that my more liberal colleagues do not want banned, but even I was out-puritaned by the concept of banning the sale of aerosol paints entirely, particularly to ordinary people. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden did not table an amendment on that, because we could have spent many happy hours in the Committee debating what constitutes an ordinary person. Happily for the Committee, that is not the position.

Siobhain McDonagh: In that instance, I was referring to people who do not mend or fix cars commercially or who have a professional or business need for spray paints.

John Randall: Or, presumably, people who do not mend their own cars without being paid for it. However, we will not go down that road. In that context, however, I thought that it might be a good idea if we banned the sale of DIY and home improvement items to people like me who are averse to them, which would give me an admirable excuse never to undertake any such activities. If we did that, our party might gain a lot of votes from the male population.
 I accept that the point about a threatening environment is a serious one. Rather than visit the constituency of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, members of the Committee could visit my 13-year-old's bedroom, which is certainly a threatening environment. I mention my 13-year-old son in this context because, among his many other delightful hobbies and pursuits, he is quite keen on model soldiers. He uses glue and spray paint to pursue that hobby. I trust him implicitly, of course, but I am happy if my wife or I go with him to purchase those items. He is happy too, because we end up paying for them. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, one of the aims of the Bill is to achieve a degree of parental responsibility, so if adults have to accompany a young person to purchase aerosol paint—we discussed glue earlier—I do not think that that is a bad thing. I am, however, concerned about the age limit. Without going over the issues again, I think that 18 is a bit steep. An age limit of 16 might be more appropriate. I presume that, because of the increased powers, the Minister would be able to tell after a time whether the limit was effective or not. If for example, the age limit was set at 16 and the number of graffiti offences committed by people aged 16 or less decreased, we would know that that limit was effective. In parallel, if the offences committed in the 16-to-18 age group remained high, there would perhaps be some justification for raising the age limit. 
 Taking up my hon. Friend's point about treating young people with a certain amount of respect, I believe that there might be a justification for a sunset clause. If we bear in mind that only a small number of people misuse these products, it might be nice to offer them an eventual reward for improved behaviour. I am afraid that I am beginning to act, sound and probably look like the old fogey that I never thought I would become, but I think that it might be effective to offer an incentive to young people by saying that although something has been taken away, it will be restored if they learn to behave responsibly again. That suggestion might fall between the different proposals that are being made. I ask the Minister to re-examine the age limit and to consider the possibility of inserting a sunset clause. 
 I do not claim to be psychic, Mr. Cran, but I believe that we will not have a stand part debate, given that we have explored all sorts of things that one can do at the age of 16—although I never did them at 16. I would therefore like to ask the Minister a final question, based on my retailing background. The Bill does not mention the people who sell the items in question. Do such people have to be over 18? Many DIY shops and other places selling aerosol paints employ people aged 16 or over, particularly on Saturdays. It would be rather ironic, therefore, if it were perfectly legal for a 16 or even a 15-year-old to sell such products, but not to sell them to someone who is a couple of years older. 
 I presume that the Government has got everything sorted out. I go to bed every night thinking how wonderful it is that the country is in such safe hands. I wake up in the morning and find that very little has gone wrong—until I switch on the news. None the less, I hope that the Government will consider this issue.

Bob Ainsworth: We started by having a reasonable debate, and we ended by having a reasonable debate. The bit in the middle was the contribution of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, which contrasted with the contributions of his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for Ludlow. Perhaps he lives in an absolute idyll where there is no graffiti or antisocial behaviour. We are trying to deal with a very big problem. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested that, if we were to ban spray paint, we would be branding everyone under the age of 18 a graffiti artist. We banned glue because of a different problem, but that did not brand everyone under 18 a glue sniffer. The hon. Gentleman's contribution departed from the serious way in which the Committee was discussing a very serious problem.
 I do not accept that we are talking about an extreme and draconian proposal. I welcome the tone of what was said by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Ludlow, and others. We must try to get the balance right. No one should underestimate the scale of the problem. One problem that we have in dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) is that we do not know the full scale of the problem. We must look at good quality studies to understand who are the perpetrators of the damage that is being done to our communities. 
 I should like to say a word on my volte face concerning the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Since I left the Whips Office, I have discovered—much to my surprise—that I still have liberal streak. As the hon. Gentleman will have noticed during the Committee's deliberations, many people wish to remove that streak. Perhaps, in part, they are succeeding. 
 Graffiti is a blight on our communities. It is a burden on businesses and local authorities, which are left to clean up graffiti on property and public spaces. The cost of graffiti clean-up in London alone is £23 million. That is clearly not the cost of cleaning up to the extent of giving us a capital city in pristine condition of which we can all be proud. 
 The clause seeks to make it more difficult for teenagers to acquire the tools of the trade. The amendments would enable people to buy those items at the age of 14 or 16, rather than 18. However, evidence from a report of the Greater London Assembly's graffiti investigative committee, published in May 2002, shows that—although graffiti is not only caused by those in their teens—much graffiti is caused by under-18s. For example, it noted that so-called ''tagging'' is the most common type of graffiti and that, on housing estates, it is predominantly carried out by those aged between eight and 18. It is also reported that the profile of those carrying out graffiti in the London boroughs of Camden, Barking, Dagenham and Merton included children up to the age of 18. 
 Bromley police advised us that about 28 offenders were arrested for graffiti offences in the first six months of 2001, and all were males aged between 14 and 17. The British Transport police has advised us that the majority of offenders on the transport system—where this is a serious problem, which causes a disgusting mess that costs a fortune to clean up—are aged between 14 and 17.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister should not get too hung up on the lower age of 14. If he thinks about it for a moment, he will realise that those younger than 14 would not be subject to the rigours of the law. There might well be several graffiti artists under the age of 14, but they would not have been arrested and brought before the courts because of other provision.

Bob Ainsworth: I acknowledge that point. The hon. Gentleman has also given me the opportunity to correct something that I said. I said that the British Transport police told us that the offenders were aged between 14 and 17, but what it actually said was that the majority of offenders were between 14 and 19.
 The London borough of Wandsworth has conducted some research. It described the profile of the graffiti offender as a male aged 13 to 17 from any of a variety of social and educational backgrounds. Serious points have been made about the problems that retailers might have in identifying ages, and we are exploring the use of pass cards and other schemes. I accept that if we went with the heart of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and forgot about an age limit altogether, we would not have a problem at all. However, lowering the age—as the amendment would do—does not relieve retailers of the difficulty of identifying ages. 
 Graffiti is a serious problem. We are often told by the Conservative party that we should follow the example of the considerable improvements on crime that have been made in New York. Well, that city has taken precisely this measure, among others, to deal with the massive graffiti problem that has been inflicted on that city for a long time—and with considerable effect. Anyone who visits will see that tremendous progress has been made. Not everything can be achieved by enforcement. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that Conservative Members often berate us over the broken window syndrome; they also tell us that we should not have community support 
 officers, or neighbourhood wardens, but that the police should concentrate on serious crime.

Nick Hawkins: No, we do not.

Bob Ainsworth: The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was widely reported in the newspapers as saying that not so long ago.

Nick Hawkins: That is not our contention. The reason why I wanted to intervene was not to correct the Minister's mistake, although it is a misstatement of our position: we recognise the need for more fully qualified police to be on our streets dealing with all types of crime.
 After the Committee has finished, will the Minister write to me and other Committee members showing the exact legislative provisions in New York? I should be interested to see whether those provisions specifically go up to the age of 18.

Bob Ainsworth: I was going to suggest something like that.
 Teenagers with reason for legitimate use will still be able to use aerosol paints. They will have to do what the hon. Member for Uxbridge says; they will have to get other people, such as their parents, to purchase them. However, spray paints will still be available. Retailers will have to deal with those situations. 
 I recognise that there are lots of young people involved in art, model making or car repairs who have legitimate reasons for wanting aerosol paints. Those young people are not stupid; they live in the same world as us, and put up with the same mess as the rest of us. As my hon. Friends have said, those young people sometimes come under peer-group pressure to become involved in things that they would not have done if that pressure were relieved. They are not devoid of the ability to recognise the need to clamp down on such activity. 
 I will provide the Committee with all the evidence that we have so far that suggests that there may be a justification for using the age of 18 in the clause. We will think about what has been said on whether sunset clauses are appropriate, because some serious points have been made in Committee about whether we are going too far. However, the evidence that I will share with the Committee shows that the problem relates to over-16s, and in considerable numbers. For the moment, unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I think that we should stick with the proposal in the Bill. 
 I will continue to listen to representations, or any other evidence to show that it is not the age group that the Bill mentions that is presenting the problem. If people think that they have that evidence, they should let us have it, because I do not pretend that we have the whole picture mapped out, or that we know exactly what is going on in our society. We are talking about a real problem that costs us a fortune and blights many people's lives. At the moment I am not prepared to accept the proposal.

Nick Hawkins: This has been one of the most useful and interesting debates of the whole Committee; we
 have had many useful debates, but this is a particularly good one. It is short but very much to the point.
 Although my remarks were relatively brief, I endorse every word that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. We are concerned about the nanny state going too far. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said; as usual, he is reasonable and rational, and has helped the Committee by saying that he will listen to further representations and provide us with the detailed evidence. I should like to look at the New York provisions myself; being a lawyer, I am always interested to see how other jurisdictions approach problems. It will also be interesting because all parties have sought to draw lessons from the dramatic reduction in crime of all kinds that Rudy Giuliani and his colleagues have achieved in New York. We need to learn lessons from that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and I—and many other colleagues—have said. 
 We feel strongly about the issue, for all the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge in his splendid, witty contribution. There are the concerns of retailers, and the fact that there are so many legitimate uses for aerosol paints. We do not want to go too far. We want to place on the record the extent of our concerns, so that those in another place, in particular, will appreciate how strongly we feel about the matter. We therefore want to press amendment No. 78, which we think takes the reasonable middle course. It would not strike out the whole clause; it would merely reduce the age mentioned to 16. I know that the Minister has been reasonable in saying that he will continue to think about the matter, but he has made it quite clear that he is not persuaded. We hope that, by voting on amendment No. 78, we shall cause the Minister to think very seriously about the issue. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Unlawfully deposited waste etc

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in
clause 54, page 39, leave out lines 30 to 33.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in
clause 54, page 39, leave out lines 34 to 38.

Nick Hawkins: We wish to probe the Government on this clause. I was glad to see that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has added her name to amendment No. 82. However, I was puzzled that the name of her colleague the hon. Member for Ludlow had not also been added: I did not know whether that was an accident or there had been a Liberal Democrat split.
 We want to probe the Government because they are seeking to add to section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is a good piece of legislation that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government—as you, Mr. Cran, and Committee members know. The Government want to introduce more Henry VIII-type powers for the Secretary of State. I assume that, in this case, that would be the Secretary of State at what is now called DEFRA—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Minister is nodding. Most of the clauses in the Bill that contain Henry VIII-type powers give them to the Home Secretary: however, with regard to some areas, such as waste and litter, which we are currently addressing, they are given to the Secretary of State at DEFRA. If I may express a personal view, Mr. Cran, that is one of the most inelegant names that has ever been given to a Government Department, and it is an enormous shame that the important interests of agriculture are no longer recognised by the present Labour Government: that shows, once again, that they do not understand the countryside.

James Cran: Yes, of course, but let us not have a debate about it.

Nick Hawkins: As always, Mr. Cran, you keep me on the straight and narrow. I simply wanted to say that there are some big issues with regard to the waste and litter section—which we will come to soon.
 I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time on this issue because it is a small one. We are not convinced that even more order-making powers need to be given to a Secretary of State. Far too much of that is going on. I am sure that the Minister will say, with his usual air of sweet reasonableness, that there is nothing sinister here, that the Government have the best intentions, and that there will be guidance and all kinds of scrutiny, and so on. 
 However, there is one particularly significant point that makes my concerns about this greater than the normal Henry VIII concerns that my party colleagues and I always have. New section 59A(2) states: 
''Each such authority must, by such time in each year as the Secretary of State may specify, provide him, in respect of such period as he may specify, with such information as he may specify in 
relation to the categories and quantities of waste with respect to which it has exercised its powers under section 59 above.''
 That has the potential to be an onerous burden on the waste regulation and collection authorities. 
 This is the biggest point with regard to our probing of this matter: I am frequently told by chief executives of authorities—in this case, it is usually my local authority—that they are constantly being given more duties by central Government without the funds to enable them to carry them out. That is a massive problem for small authorities. 
 Yesterday I received yet another letter from Surrey Heath borough council, which is constantly writing to me. I have previously mentioned that my constituency contains some of the territory of two borough councils, including the whole of Surrey Heath. Surrey Heath borough council said that the small increase of £49,000 in its funding from central Government this year is more than wiped out by the £54,000 cost of the extra national insurance contributions for staff imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My small borough council has a net loss this year, and it is not alone. Many small authorities are in that position. 
 Almost every new Bill, especially on local government, imposes more duties on local authorities. I do not mean only Home Office Bills; I do not blame the Minister specifically. A group of bureaucrats sitting somewhere will ensure that those duties are onerous. The Minister may say that very small borough councils may not fall in the category of waste collection or waste regulation authorities. No doubt he has a massive brief that says which authorities are and which are not. Nevertheless, the same problems arise even for county councils, which are constantly being given more duties without the money to pay for them. 
 It is simply not good enough for the Labour Government to constantly load on extra duties. Even if they said that they were giving authorities the money, the real problem is increasingly that local authorities, schools and the NHS are finding that there is a culture in which piles of paper must be filled in and sent back to the centre. The overcentralisation of this Government drives me absolutely wild. I occasionally think, ''Is there a point to our being here in Parliament?'' Then I think that one of the main things about being on the Opposition Benches is to tell the Government, ''You simply must stop this.'' 
 It is not relevant to the clause, but schools have shown me piles of paper yea high sent in a single term by the Department for Education and Skills to heads and governors to complete. The same thing would no doubt be true of waste collection authorities and waste regulation authorities, which could build a similar tower of paper. We simply must stop this. 
 I hope that with this small probing amendment I can get the following message across to the Minister: ''Don't do it. Stop doing it.'' He might perhaps take that back to his colleagues in other Departments. The way to run things properly in this country is not to impose ever greater burdens on authorities, saying: 
''Each such authority must, by such time in each year as the Secretary of State may specify, provide him, in respect of such period as he may specify, with such information as he may specify''.
 That means that the bureaucrats will specify—they will always over-specify. The real problem in this country is that the bureaucrats constantly say, ''It would be useful if we had this or that'', and further demands ensue. That is nonsense and our taxpayers' and council tax payers' money—yours, mine and that of every taxpayer in the country, Mr. Cran—is being wasted on all that paper. That is unnecessary, which is why I hope that the Minister will take what I have said back to his DEFRA colleagues and say, ''We do not really need this, do we? We might, in another place, take this out, mightn't we?'' There is no need for all the paper. It is no good giving the Secretary of State power to demand all this paper; in practice, that means the bureaucrats have power. That does not add to the quality of life in this country. Paper shuffling costs money; it is simply a job-creation scheme for bureaucrats and we should stop it.

Matthew Green: I should like to reassure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that the Liberal Democrats support the amendment, although I am not sure why. The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole appears on the amendment and there are others on which the name of a Liberal Democrat is tagged on to the bottom. That may be due to how the amendments are printed in the amendment paper, rather than anything else.
 I concur with many of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I am sure that the Minister will say, ''Of course, we don't really intend to use this power very much at all. In fact, it is only included in case some unforeseen circumstances crop up and it needed to be used.'' There have been times when the Government have made noises suggesting that they should be relaxing the burdens on local authorities, allowing them a little more freedom to make decisions for themselves and deciding local priorities. I have, while shadowing the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, heard exactly those sentiments expressed. However, the clause in effect gives a blanket right to the Secretary of State to dictate the priorities in a local area. 
 It could be a national priority. The problem could be the dumping of fridges. It is estimated that it costs £75 million to dispose of fridges, but the Government gave local authorities only £6 million to deal with the problem. The problem might be dumped cars, which might not be the priority in another area. It might be something completely different, such as abandoned tractors. I am being slightly tongue in cheek. Abandoning tractors would be rather stupid, as most farmers cannot afford to buy new ones. 
 In reality there are different priorities in different parts of the country. The clause will enable the Government to tell a local authority that they know best what its priorities should be when dealing with unlawfully deposited waste. That is entirely unnecessary. Few councils under whatever political control would not want to tackle the problem of unlawfully deposited waste.

Vernon Coaker: Is not the hon. Gentleman's point covered by subsection (3), which states:
''Priorities set out in directions under subsection (1) above may be different for different authorities or areas''?

Matthew Green: Yes, in a sense it is, provided that the Government listen to the local authority when it tells them that its priorities are different. If they do not, they can impose a priority on the authority, so it still comes down from the top. The local authority does not have the freedom to decide. The hon. Gentleman may have a lot of confidence in current Ministers, but he cannot be certain that he will be as confident about every Minister who will occupy the post.
 We have to look at the implications. The clause gives a blanket power to the Secretary of State to tell local authorities what its priorities are. That goes against much of the tone that comes from all three parties when discussing local government. Although our names have not been added to it, logically we support amendment No. 83. If amendment No. 82 were passed, the other subsection would be unnecessary. The idea that all sorts of facts and figures and information can be demanded and must be supplied by a certain date could be a burdensome duty on local authorities, particularly small ones. 
 A reason why council tax rises by more than inflation each year, and has done so under whichever Government, is that extra duties are being imposed on local government almost by accident. They slip through in Bills like this. That will continue to happen. Extra officers have to be taken on for the council to comply with those roles. I personally would get rid of council tax, but I know that you do not want me to go down that route, Mr. Cran. Given that it is not his Department, the Minister is probably not in a position to take just a small step in favour of trusting local authorities to take decisions for themselves, but I hope that he can go back to DEFRA or even consult the ODPM. I hope that this one tiny step can be taken to suggest that local authorities can be trusted to run their own affairs.

James Cran: You asked, Mr. Green, why your name did not appear on the amendment paper. It may be that only the first six names appear, so the names of those who signed at numbers seven, eight, nine or 10 are not shown. That does not mean to say that they do not support the amendment.

John Randall: The hon. Member for Ludlow raised one of the matters about which I was going to ask. Waste is a rather general term. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it could mean abandoned vehicles or any of a huge raft of things. I support the amendment to remove the two subsections, mainly because it is not clear what they mean. I have sat on many Committees in my time and I often hear mentioned the term a Henry VIII clause. I think we should vary it. I am quite sympathetic to him, I do not know whether hon. Members opposite—

James Cran: Order. I have a feeling that we are wandering off the point. I do not want to have a
 debate about Henry VIII clauses or how they might be renamed.

John Randall: I accept that entirely. I would just suggest Ivan the Terrible or Basil the Bulgar-Slayer.

Mark Francois: I shall make a brief point, following from the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. He has a relatively small district council in his area and I have a relatively small one in Rochford district council, which covers some two thirds of my constituency. I echo all of his comments. My chief executive constantly bemoans the raft of legislation that comes from this place. He leads a local authority with a relatively small number of staff and a relatively small number of senior officers, who have to deal with it. The more stuff that comes out of this place, the more pressure is placed upon them. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, more staff have to be taken on in order to comply with the law that we legislators produce. It is a serious problem and I implore the Minister to think about it.
 Allied to that is the open secret that it is increasingly difficult for any political party to persuade the right calibre of people to stand for local government. We all have difficulties in finding sufficient candidates. In May, the Conservatives managed to field a few more candidates than the other parties, but it is a problem for all—

James Cran: Order. That may be a problem—I have not the slightest idea—but I do not want to debate it. We must get back to the amendment.

Mark Francois: I accept your strictures, Mr. Cran. If we want to get people to stand, we must be able to persuade them that there is a point in being involved in local government and that it has decision-making power. The more that legislation of this type is created by Government, making people in local government administrators rather than decision makers, the more difficult it will be to persuade people to give up their spare time to participate. I believe that it is a growing problem and I implore the Minister to take that point on board.

Vernon Coaker: I wish to make a couple of brief remarks. I disagree with the Conservative Front Bench and oppose wholeheartedly the Conservative amendment. Last time I said something when the Whip was not here, it was reported.
 It is important to recognise the seriousness of the clause. Large numbers of our constituents have demanded further action on fly tipping, as have local authorities, which do not have powers to deal with the problem on the scale to which it has increased. None of us likes Henry VIII clauses, but in many circumstances the Secretary of State needs to retain some discretion, for two reasons. First, there may be local authorities that simply do not use the powers that we want them to use. That is not true of most local authorities. Most use their powers wisely and properly, but that is not the case with some others. The Secretary of State needs to have a reserve power or other power so that he or she can say to a local 
 authority that clearly it is not acting in a certain way and can do something about it.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, if local authorities are given powers and discretion but fail to use them, the best judge of that is the local electorate, who can throw out the councillors who are not directing their officers to use the powers?

Vernon Coaker: That is true, but my constituents would not want to have to wait four years to make a judgment about how well or otherwise cars, carpets, rubble or whatever was being removed.
 The second reason is flexibility. This is a general statement about Henry VIII clauses. One reason why there will increasingly be discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to act on legislation—this would happen whether there was a Conservative Government, a Liberal Democrat Government or a mixture—is that increasing numbers of people are telling us that the law is stupid and asking why the legislation cannot be changed or the regulations amended. That presents us with a challenge, because if we are not careful, there will not be proper scrutiny of changes to the law. However, there is a tension between proper scrutiny of legislation and allowing legislation to have the necessary flexibility, so that regulations can be amended without the full legislative process having to be gone through. 
 I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to resist the amendment. The clause extends the powers of local authorities, as they and, indeed, our constituents have been demanding. If the measure is enforced, it will help alleviate a growing problem in all areas.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for those wise and supportive words.

Vernon Coaker: Did my hon. Friend the Whip take note of that?
Mr. John Heppell (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury) indicated assent.

Bob Ainsworth: The illegal disposal of waste, or fly tipping, is a major blight on towns and cities. The Government are keen to ensure that fly-tipping levels are reduced. Currently, the question of who deals with fly tipping is governed by a voluntary agreement between the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association. Under that agreement, the agency is supposed to deal with the fly tipping of hazardous waste and serious environmental crime; local authorities are supposed to deal with incidents involving non-hazardous waste.
 As I said, that agreement is voluntary and has been entered into freely by the LGA. However, not all authorities are following the protocol. That is leading to confusion about who is responsible for dealing with fly tipping, and creates an inconsistency between local authority areas, with some taking a stricter stance than others. In some cases, the fly tipping is transferred to areas where the local authority is less strict. That results in the Environment Agency being unable fully to focus its attention and resources where they can be most effective—on the serious end of the business. 
 The power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory directions, which the Conservative amendment would remove, aims to overcome those problems. The directions will be short. They will simply require all local authorities to take steps to deal with fly tipping of non-hazardous waste. Local authorities will retain the flexibility to decide exactly what those steps should be and how to deal with the problem in their area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will consult on draft directions before they come into effect. It may also supplement the statutory directions in time with good practice guidance. 
 I take on board the question whether the wording of the clause is wider than intended or needed, and will ask my colleagues to think about it. I accept some of the points that hon. Gentlemen have made. It may be the intention to state clearly that a particular responsibility belongs to the Environment Agency and another to local authorities, but to leave them with the flexibility to set their own priorities. We should be prepared to examine the words to see whether we have made the clause too wide. I happily agree to consider that before Report.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister assure us that money will be allocated to local authorities when it is clear which extra duties they will be required to undertake? Many local authorities have targets on recycling, but only very few authorities have been fortunate enough to have won money in a competition. This is an important issue, and I want to be assured that adequate funds will be allocated.

Bob Ainsworth: Absolutely not. If the hon. Lady has been listening to what I have been saying, she will know that the responsibilities are already there. The division has been agreed between what waste the Environment Agency should accept responsibility for, and what waste and fly tipping local authorities will deal with. The problem is that some local authorities are carrying out their responsibilities diligently in line with the agreement that their association entered into, but other local authorities are not. We will need to ensure that the data requirement does not place an unnecessary burden on local authorities. However, we are not creating new responsibilities for local authorities; we are putting a voluntary arrangement for existing responsibilities into a statutory framework, which the Local Government Association wants us to do. What the hon. Lady is asking for is unjustified on this occasion.
 Amendment No. 83 would remove the power for the Secretary of State to require annual data returns to be made by local authorities and the Environment Agency on the number and types of fly-tipping incidents with which they have to deal in any one year. At the moment, there is no national data on levels of fly tipping or on the types of waste that are being dumped and the types of land on which it is being dumped, nor do we have any way of monitoring the impact of particular policies implemented by central or local government. 
 We know that the agency and most local authorities collect data, but that they do not do so in a standardised way. Different classification systems are used and no one collates data centrally to form a national or regional picture. That is the case in other areas. I understand what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is saying, but he cannot have it both ways. All Members of Parliament seek relevant and appropriate answers from Ministers. Sometimes, the answer is, ''This is not collected centrally.'' It is a huge problem for the democratic process that we do not know what we should know. I accept that we should not expect to know about everything, but not knowing the picture is a problem when trying to plan how to deal with this very serious issue. 
 We do not know which policies the different authorities are pursuing because the data collection systems do not marry up. We, therefore, need to improve the database on fly tipping to help inform future policy development. We need an effective way of evaluating policies aimed either at reducing fly-tipping levels or at changing other aspects of waste management. We will ensure that the requirement is brought into effect in a way that is easy to follow, and that it will be low in cost for local authorities. The authorities will benefit from the measure, because they will be able to access reports from the database; and the Environment Agency will develop a website database for local authorities to enter information. We believe that that is the best way to standardise the collection of information, and people will have the benefit of being able to gain access to it.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister, not only for giving way but for the approach that he has taken. However, although I understand what he says about information being collected, I made a second point. If the Government have decided that they want the information, they should be responsible for providing a specific ring-fenced amount of money to every authority on which they are imposing the bureaucratic burden of collecting it. The Government, having made that decision, should clearly pay for it.

Bob Ainsworth: As I said, we will get the Environment Agency to develop a website database, so that local authorities can standardise along those lines.
 I accept, as the hon. Gentleman says, that in some areas we do this where we should not. However, the measure meets a recommendation made by the National Audit Office in its report ''Protecting the public from waste'', which was published in December 2002. It said that a national system was needed to monitor fly tipping, which was both economic and reliable. 
 The Local Government Association and the Environment Agency strongly support the measures in the Bill. They believe that it will give local authorities a more strategic role in dealing with the increasing problem of fly tipping. With the assurance that I shall consider whether we might have drawn the provision too widely, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, the Minister has been most reasonable, although he did not deal with the point that I made in my intervention. However, he would be in terrible trouble if he started to make financial commitments; the Chancellor would come down on him like a ton of bricks.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) shares my view, and the hon. Member for Ludlow clearly has some of the same concerns. Indeed, his contribution to the debate was extremely helpful, based as it was on his experience of shadowing other areas of Government policy. I found what he had to say interesting and helpful. 
 I said at the outset that these were probing amendments. I shall not pursue them, particularly in the light of the Minister's helpful explanation. Towards the end of his response, he strengthened his position by referring to the National Audit Office. However, for reasons that I shall return to in the next debate, he will not persuade me by praying in aid the Environment Agency. The agency's reputation in my constituency was never high, but is now at an all time low. I would be out of order if I were to anticipate the next debate, Mr. Cran, but I want to let the Minister know that he does not help his case by mentioning the Environment Agency. 
 I stress once again that if the Government are going to impose those new burdens on local authorities, whether or not they were recommended by the NAO, the Government will have to provide funding. That is what the hon. Member for Ludlow, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and I are particularly concerned about. I am sure that the Minister will take that point away with him. He helpfully said that he will review those matters with his ministerial colleagues between now and Report and the Bill's going to another place. I hope that he will decide that modifications could be made to the provision. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Extension of Litter Authority Powers to take Remedial Action

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 182, in
clause 55, page 40, leave out lines 24 and 25.
 This is a probing amendment. I have read the clause and schedule 3 a few times, and I am worried at what might be a double negative. I want the Minister's reassurance that the provision does not mean that local authorities can enter military installations to clean up litter, because we would not support that. In fact, I think that the Bill exempts military installations, which brings me to the more interesting question of whether the 1990 Act allowed local authorities to enter them. If it did, how often have they done so and why is the clause necessary? 
 As I said, this is a probing amendment. I am slightly confused and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy teasing me. None the less, I am intrigued by the provision.

Bob Ainsworth: Local authorities can currently issue a litter abatement notice requiring the owner of the land to clean it up. If the notice is ignored, they can enter the land themselves, clear it of litter, and recover the costs through the courts. However, an exemption prevents them from entering and clearing Crown land or the land of statutory undertakers, such as railways and port authorities. The clause removes that exemption.
 It is important, however, on grounds of safety and national security, that Crown land occupied for armed forces purposes should remain exempt. The hon. Gentleman will see that authorities have not been entering military installations. The clause gives local authorities the ability to enter Crown land for the first time, but it exempts military land. The extension applied by the clause is, therefore, restricted.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is giving a helpful clarification. I did not speak to the amendment, because I wanted to hear what he had to say. However, I should tell him that I very much recognise that the Government are right to introduce the measure that is before us. My constituency has one of the largest proportions of military land of any in the country, because it contains huge military ranges. I certainly would not want local authority employees putting themselves at risk by going on to those ranges, where they might be in physical danger.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
 Where a litter abatement notice is issued against Crown land occupied for armed forces purposes, the appropriate Crown authority is still under a duty to comply. Where the notice is ignored, we would expect the local authority to seek to persuade the military authorities to comply. Should they continue to fail to do so, there remains the possibility of a prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 
 I think that that explanation covers the concern raised by the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for that. I tabled the amendment to find out whether what I called a double negative had the effect that I suggested. We welcome the fact that the Bill extends the powers to Crown land while exempting military installations. That is absolute common sense, and I am glad that the Minister explained why the provision was included. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5 - Removal of unauthorised encampments and waste

'.—The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows: 
 In Section 61 (Power to remove trespassers on land) 
 (a) For subsection (1) there is substituted— 
 ''(1) If the senior police office present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of 
residing there for any period and that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave he may direct those persons or any of them to leave the land and to remove any vehicles, other property or waste they have with them on the land or which appears to the officer to be connected to their presence on the land.''. 
 (b) Subsection (2) is omitted. 
 (c) In Subsection (4) there is inserted after paragraph (b)— 
 ''(c) Fails to remove any vehicles, other property or waste which he has with him on the land or which appears to be connected to his presence on the land.''. 
 (d) In Subsection (6) paragraph (b) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Paice.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

James Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New Clause 11—Deliberate despoiling and/or mis-use of land— 
'(1) The Chief Executive Officer of the relevant local authority may make an eviction order in relation to premises to which this section applies if he reasonably believes that— 
 (a) a public nuisance is being caused by deliberate despoiling or misuse of land by the owners or occupiers of that land; 
 (b) the eviction of any persons whether owners or occupiers or trespassers or visitors is necessary to prevent that nuisance and/or to correct the despoiling or misuse of the land. 
 (2) A person commits an offence if he permits or authorises the continuing misuse or despoiling of land or creation of a public nuisance on it or aids or abets others to do so. 
 (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to— 
 (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, 
 (b) a fine not exceeding £20,000, 
 (c) both.'.

James Paice: We now come to two new clauses. I shall be quite frank about the fact that I drafted the first and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath drafted the second. I am sure that he will explain the reason for the difference, should he catch your eye, Mr. Cran. We both address an issue that I hope strikes a chord not only with us but with Members in many parts of the House.
 I have heard Labour Back Benchers speak in the House about the mess and other problems that can arise from unauthorised traveller encampments. That is a very serious problem in my constituency. Cambridgeshire has a long-standing history of hosting traveller populations that goes back to the days of casual agricultural labour. Those days are long gone, but Cambridgeshire still features strongly in the travellers' itinerary. Some counties are fortunate to be almost exempt from that itinerary, but those such as ours are not. I have heard Labour Members who represent much more urban areas also complaining about the problems. 
 There have been a number of attempts in legislation to address the problem of unauthorised traveller encampments on both public and private land. By far the most significant attempt to deal with the problem was the Criminal Justice and Public Order 
 Act 1994, in particular sections 61 and 62. One theme that has emerged from the Committee's proceedings is that although there are many powers in place, for one reason or another they are not used. I am attempting with new clause 5 to redraft section 61 of the 1994 Act slightly to remove some of the excuses for failing to take any action that police and public authorities have put to me. I do not pretend that I have necessarily got rid of all those excuses and I do not know what the Minister will say, but I am anxious that we try to ensure that there is no excuse for not using the powers to deal with unauthorised encampments that Parliament has given to police and local authorities. 
 Such encampments are a tremendous problem. Only this week there was a headline in the Cambridge Evening News about how two of my constituents had been burgled for the 192nd time. Their fence abuts on to a legal traveller encampment—there is great resentment that it is there, but there it is by the grace of the district and county councils. There is no doubt that those constituents and others whose houses abut the camp have been the constant victims of crime ever since it has been there. The crime has been not only burglary, but the throwing of rubbish over the fence, the breaking down of fences and so on. 
 That is a serious case, but over Easter my constituency also saw a huge influx of travellers. Most were in vehicles bearing Irish number plates, so there was nothing traditional or local about them—they were genuine itinerants. They came into the area and settled, in some cases on public land and in others on private land. The problem is not just that travellers come and park somewhere, causing an horrendous visual blight, but that there is a criminal element among them who use that facility to carry out burglary and robbery in the vicinity. Police officers are convinced of that, although it would of course be wrong to brand every traveller as criminal. I strongly doubt that it is any coincidence that a number of workshops have been burgled in the vicinity of my village in the two or three weeks since there has been an illegal traveller encampment three miles down the road. I think that the two are linked. 
 At present, the only recourse that private landowners have when a number of caravans arrive on their property is to go to court to obtain an eviction order. Only when the landowner has that eviction order will the police take any action to remove those caravans. The process is time-consuming and costs something in the ballpark of £1,000, but that is not all. Once that has been achieved, assuming that the travellers are removed, they leave behind them the most awful mess. They leave burned-out vehicles, scrap, broken glass and, perhaps worst of all, a vast amount of human waste—not just food waste, but faeces. It is unimaginable, unless one has been in the unfortunate position of seeing it for oneself. In new clause 5, I am seeking to require not only that those individuals be removed, but that they take with them all the waste that they have created. 
 I take the site that I have referred to—three miles from my village—as an example. It is 100 yd outside my constituency, but it is very close to where I live. The travellers there were removed after the landowner 
 went to court last week. He has been put to immense expense in order to clear the area. He is in the process of spending even more money to construct an earth bank of about 150 m to prevent the travellers from re-entering that site. 
 I am grateful for the supportive words that I hear from the Labour Back Benchers. The Minister may not be grateful, but I am. Those problems are not an exclusive feature of Conservative constituencies; it is a serious antisocial problem. 
 I see that the Government Whip has returned; the nodding will have to stop. 
 New clause 5 seeks to do several things. First, it seeks to remove from section 61 of the 1994 Act two of the criteria that a senior police officer must meet before he can take action. The first criterion that must be met is 
''that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his''.
 That is not too difficult to achieve. If one goes anywhere near them, one is told where to go. 
 The second criterion that must be met is 
''that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land.''
 I do not believe that threshold needs to exist. I am seeking to remove those two elements. 
 I am also seeking to remove section 61(2) of the Act. That is another loophole. It states: 
''Where the persons in question are reasonably believed by the senior police officer to be persons who were not originally trespassers but have become trespassers on the land, the officer must reasonably believe that the other conditions specified in subsection (1) are satisfied after those persons became trespassers before he can exercise the power conferred by that subsection.''
 That gives more excuses and opportunity for action to be contested in the courts—more opportunity for inaction. That subsection should be removed. I have also added that all waste must be removed because there is a question mark over whether property includes waste. I am anxious that when people are removed from land, they should be forced to clear that land. 
 It has been clear from the Committee's reaction while I have been speaking that it is a huge problem. It is totally and utterly antisocial, and is of huge cost to the landowner. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath will explain some of his experiences in his constituency, and why he has addressed the matter slightly differently. However, we are both trying to achieve the same end. I do not know whether I have got new clause 5 absolutely right; I do not have the help of parliamentary draftsmen. However, I ask the Minister to take very seriously the need to remove from current legislation every excuse for inaction. It is far too full of excuses, and of references to courts and to local authority departments. I am not belittling the need to look after families, but if one asks a social services department for advice on the welfare of a particular family, that request will go to the bottom of 
 its list, because it has many other things to do. Meanwhile, that family is parked on someone's land, despoiling the countryside or the community and causing various problems. 
 We need short, simple legislation to let the police know that if people are illegally parked for the purposes of residing on the land, they should be removed, assuming that that is what the owner of the land wants, and should take with them everything that they brought on to the site. That process should take place expeditiously. That is the only satisfactory way to remove what has become a blight on large parts of my constituency, and on urban and rural constituencies throughout the country. The problem is the same whether it concerns waste land or a green field, and must be resolved. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed not only my words, but the acknowledgment of the hon. Members who sit behind him, and accept that although my wording may not be perfect, the issue is serious. 
 Earlier in the Committee's discussions, the Minister said several times that the Government were undertaking reviews of various issues. I do not want to belittle his reviews, but taking action two or three years down the road is inadequate. The issue must be addressed quickly, and the Bill is a good vehicle to deal with it. It clearly, if I may say so, fits the Bill. I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot accept my proposal, will use the Bill as a vehicle to tighten up the legislation and to ensure that the powers that have been given are used swiftly and effectively.

Matthew Green: Before I discuss the reasons why I cannot support the amendments, I agree that there is a problem. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, because on some occasions there seems to be no possibility for action. However, he casts his net too wide in his attempt to find a solution to the problem. If he reads his amendment carefully, he will realise that it may have unforeseen consequences.
 By removing the wording about vehicles, for example, and by rewording the first section, he would allow a police officer to remove wild campers, by which I mean people who are camping overnight—[Interruption.] I will clarify the term. Wild campers are people who, for example, might camp on a mountain but who do not use a public campsite. I have done it myself—technically it is trespassing, but it is a widespread practice and one that does not cause problems for anyone. There may not be many police on a mountain, but the way in which the hon. Gentleman has framed the amendment would mean that a police officer had the power to make two people in a tent move it off the site, and would potentially render them liable to imprisonment if they happened to leave some litter behind. I am sure that that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention.

James Paice: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports what I said. I am saying that if people camp on land and leave a pile of litter, they should be prosecuted. Litter is a visual affront, and leaving it behind in any other context would be an offence, so it is right that they should be required to remove it.
 The hon. Gentleman slightly misinterprets my amendment. Casual campers, or two people in a tent, whatever their purpose might be, will not cause problems of the sort that I have described. However, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the new clause specifies that reasonable steps must 
''have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave''
 and that then he may—not he shall—direct them to leave. It is clear that the police officer will retain the discretion. If he thinks that the occupier is being unreasonable in saying to—

James Cran: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to move from an intervention into a speech.

Matthew Green: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. However, I still believe that he is attempting to make the power too wide. He said that he might not have the wording exactly right. I am pointing out a potential pitfall that might occur if the legislation is widened, whatever the good intent might be.
 New clause 11 uses the term ''misuse''. I understand that the hon. Gentleman sees the new clause as dealing with a particular problem. However, we have to consider whether the law will be used in circumstances other than that for which it has been proposed. The new clause would give powers to a local authority to evict somebody who was deliberately misusing or despoiling land, even if that person owned the land. A couple of such cases have occurred in my constituency. They were difficult, but they have been resolved. They both concerned farmers who had deposited large amounts of more than redundant, broken, bits of machinery on their own land next to the public road. Eventually, because of complaints, the local authority took action. After some time and several court actions, both sites were cleared up, using existing legislation. The problem with this legislation is that a local authority could use it to evict those owners from their land. I realise what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I caution him about how wide he is making the legislation. He might have one purpose in mind, but it could be used in circumstances for which he does not intend it.

John Randall: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. I do not say that the wording of the new clause is perfect, but the problem is with the matter of excuses, which I think he recognises. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of framing more effective measures for removing travellers from unauthorised encampments?

Matthew Green: We would want to be able to be sure that the law could be used. The Gentleman has made a good point in saying that there are occasions when the existing law needs to be enforced but is not being used. I understand his desire to try to use the existing law. That is a different matter from widening the scope of the law. I am trying to urge caution about widening the law, rather than about removing hurdles to the use of existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman has made a stab at removing the hurdles, but in the new clause he has widened the legislation beyond the
 purpose that he intends it to serve. I cannot support the new clauses because they have the potential to draw in much wider issues.
Several hon. Members rose—

James Cran: The hon. Gentleman's name is on the tip of my tongue.

Nick Hawkins: And you have been a colleague of mine for 11 years, Mr. Cran. [Interruption.] Demob happy or what?

James Cran: I call Mr. Hawkins.

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire rightly said, with the new clauses we are aiming at slightly different aspects of an undoubted problem, but if I may, I shall incorporate into my speech every word that he said. All of us, particularly those who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies, which includes me, have seen the appalling amount of waste that is left behind by travellers who are trespassers. My hon. Friend's aim relates to travellers who are trespassers, whereas my new clause 11 is intended to cover the situation in which such abuses have been caused even by owners of the land. The hon. Member for Ludlow rightly pointed that out, but he did so in an ''on the one hand, this; on the other hand, that'' speech, which is typical of the Liberal Democrats. They are never prepared to address the extent of the abuses.
 There is a particular constituency reason why I raise this point. Similar issues have arisen in other constituencies and I hope that other members of the Committee, because they may face exactly the same problem that my constituency has had, will take note of this. In new clause 11, I have tried to deal with a relatively recent aspect of the problem. We now have the situation in this country—this has happened not only in my constituency—in which some travellers have become very wealthy. They have probably become wealthy because they operate in the black economy in very many cases and do not pay tax. They are quite often referred to as ''the boys from the black stuff''. They go round many houses in my constituency asking, ''Can we tarmac your drive?'' Anyone who is unwise enough to let them in usually has a lousy job done and is hugely overcharged. If they decline to pay, and particularly if they are elderly and vulnerable, heavies from the traveller community come and threaten them. We all know that that goes on. As a result of such activities, some travellers become wealthy. 
 In a village called Chobham in my constituency, unscrupulous travellers have bought a field. It is known as field 0081—that is its numbering on the land plan—and is at a place called Pennypot lane. Those travellers have dumped thousands of tonnes of hard-core—I do not exaggerate—on a field that is on a flood plain. They have moved lots of tarmac and asphalt on top of the hard-core, and lots of caravans on to that. 
 Even if owners of land misuse it in that overt way, the current law does not give local authorities or, indeed, anyone else the same powers to deal with them as the previous Conservative Government did in relation to trespassers in the Criminal Justice and 
 Public Order Act 1994. I was proud to serve on that Committee. It was one of the most important pieces of legislation that we introduced in my time in government; it was a very big Bill. I was responsible for dealing with it, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), who was then a Home Office Minister of State and lead for the Government on the Committee. 
 We toughened up the powers, and there was a lot of support from Labour members of the Committee, who were in opposition, because we all, as far as the main parties were concerned, wanted to toughen up the law against travellers. In the early 1990s, we had started to see the problem of illegal raves and we had certainly seen huge problems with travellers who were trespassers. However, I do not think that any of us anticipated back in 1994 that we would have the wholly new problem of wealthy travellers buying land and misusing it. 
 I make no apology for saying what new clause 11 is intended to do and I do not think that there would be unintended consequences. Even if people own land, I want the law to be able to deal with them if they deliberately misuse it, for example, by wrecking the drainage of an area by laying thousands of tonnes of hard-core and asphalt on a flood plain, and putting caravans on top. I want the Committee to understand how frustrating it has been for all the law-abiding residents of Chobham, and for the chief executive, senior officers and councillors on Surrey Heath borough council. They have tried to use the courts wherever possible. They have tried to get round the problem that the travellers are now the legal owners of the field by using the local authority's compulsory purchase powers. Once they compulsorily purchase the field, it will return to the ownership of the local authority, which will be able to evict the travellers, who will by then be trespassers. However, in the meantime, there is continuing damage to the drainage. Chobham has suffered extensively from flooding in the past and the position will become worse. 
 Earlier, in a brief response to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I said that he was not helping his case by referring to the Environment Agency. I shall explain why. There is huge anger—I cannot stress it too strongly—in my constituency, up to and including the leader of the council and the chief executive, a senior and experienced local government officer, with the Environment Agency, because although the Environment Agency originally said, ''Oh dear, this is building on a flood plain'', it has failed to do anything about it. 
 The councillors for the ward concerned and the residents have found out that the man who was sent by the Environment Agency immediately went native and started siding with the travellers. I have had some very acrimonious correspondence, as has the chief executive of the local authority, with the chief executive of the Environment Agency. I make no apology for putting that on the record. An extraordinary thing has 
 happened. The chief executive of the Environment Agency, as she now is, was originally appointed as a Labour peer. Subsequently, when she changed jobs, it was felt that it would be wrong for her to continue to be a Labour peer, so she became a cross-Bench peer. When I wrote to her and suggested that she was too busy pursuing her duties supporting the Government to do the Environment Agency job properly, she wrote back and said that I was wrong: she spends hardly any time in the House of Lords but is working full-time as chief executive of the Environment Agency. 
 Two points immediately occurred to me. First, what is she doing in the upper House of this place if she is writing to me, a Member of Parliament, to say that she is not going to do her job? Secondly, what were the Government doing appointing this person to be a peer? I want those points on the record because they have caused huge anger in my constituency. When that sort of thing is put in writing to me and made clear to the chief executive of my local authority, I am not surprised that local people are angry. They look to senior people in a body that exists to protect the environment and to address the concerns of innocent, law-abiding landowners and house owners in Chobham about flooding, and they see that that work is not being done. 
 There is also concern about the fact that the travellers own the land and the courts are failing to help the local authority do something about it. I stress the sequence of events. The local authority, Surrey Heath borough council, recognising the serious extent of the problem, sought—as any responsible authority would—an injunction. Having managed to get one on Wednesday 12 February 2003 against some named occupants of field 0081 in Pennypot Lane, Chobham, it issued proceedings in the High Court for an application for committal of some of the named people—I shall not trouble the Committee with all the names—as a result of the defendants' being in contempt of the court order made on 12 February. The application sought an order that the defendants be committed to prison or such other order as the court may think just to punish them for their contempt—that is, the continuing dumping of thousands of tons of hard core. A few weeks ago I spoke to somebody who has been working at the neighbouring farm. To give the Committee an idea of the scale of the problem, he said that lorries were arriving every 15 minutes and dumping more hard core. Naturally, I have been to see the field. 
 The chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council, Mr. Barry Catchpole said: 
''The Council takes breaches—
 of the planning regulations—
very seriously. The Council hopes that the High Court will take a firm line with those who breach the injunction and send the right message to such transgressors that society's rules and laws are to be respected and obeyed by all.''
 The county council, the borough council, the parish council in Chobham and I, as Member of Parliament, all hoped that that would happen. 
 On Friday 2 May, Mr. Justice Holland said that the injunction was being ''flagrantly ignored'' and that he 
 would commit to prison any of the named respondents in the application if any further breaches occurred before the hearing. At that time, the local authority councillors and officers and I were confident that something would finally happen. 
 However, on Monday 19 May, despite three months' further evidence of the flagrant breaches of the injunction granted in February, the court decided not to take any notice of any of the breaches, simply added to the injunction, which remains in place, 24 other named occupiers of the site, adjourned the contempt hearing indefinitely and took no action. Not surprisingly, the borough council's formal statement said: 
''The Council is extremely disappointed with the outcome of the judge's view of the breaches of the injunction and how he has dealt with the hearing. Despite his previous comments on the situation the Court has completely backtracked and has failed to sentence anyone for the clear and persistent breaches of the injunction.''
 My close friend and colleague, borough councillor Stuart Stevenson, who represents the neighbouring ward of Bisley, is the chairman of the borough council's planning applications committee. He said: 
''It is a pity that the courts are not very supportive of Government . . . which—
 apparently— 
''encourages the use of High Court injunctions to combat flagrant breaches of planning control. I know that many residents will feel let down by this decision and I share those feelings, especially as this apparent gutless decision made by the Court sends the wrong message to all parts of the community and will not be understood by the residents of Pennypot Lane''—
 and the rest of Chobham and the local authority. 
''However the lack of action by the Court will not diminish the Council's commitment to remove the unauthorised occupants as soon as legally possible.''
 That refers to the fact that the local authority was going to try to use compulsory purchase measures, which is a long and slow process, as hon. Members who have dealt with such matters know. 
 I finished the story so that all members of the Committee could understand the seriousness of the problem and appreciate why new clause 11 or, if its wording is not quite right, something similar is needed to deal with property owners in these circumstances. It may be a rare situation, but it will become more common as travellers profit from the black economy. If what they do works in Chobham, they will try it everywhere and get round the laws against trespassers on land by buying property and despoiling the land by building on flood plains and so on.

Matthew Green: We can sense some of the hon. Gentleman's frustration. I want to discuss the ''misuse'' of land, because the use of land is a planning term. Deliberately misusing it could be interpreted as deliberately not obeying the planning rules that pertain to it. That is my interpretation.
 There are a vast number of situations, not just those to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, in which people might deliberately not follow the planning use that has been laid down. Does the hon. Gentleman realise the implication of the proposal, in that people would face eviction and, possibly, imprisonment?

Nick Hawkins: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point, but he will understand that the chief executives of local authorities will not use the powers in a draconian or silly way. Although one tries to ensure that the law has a sense of proportion, he will understand why there must be a measure to give the chief executive of a local authority the power to deal with a situation such as that in my constituency, otherwise how can it be dealt with? We cannot have a situation in which local residents have to put up with these problems for months because the courts will not use the current law and it will take the council a long time to take out and enforce compulsory purchase orders. The travellers will simply sit there, ignoring all the laws for as long as they can, as they do when they trespass. They wait until the last minute and move on only when the local council arrives with a massive police back up.
 We must give the chief executive of the local authority power to deal with the kind of flagrant abuse that there is in my constituency, and then rely on their good sense and judgment not to misuse that power when it is not appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for giving them such a power. No behaviour is more antisocial than the problems caused by travellers; it is about the worst thing that can happen to any community when travellers descend like a plague of locusts. I know that Labour members of the Committee have faced similar problems in their constituencies because it has been such a big problem in my constituency that I have had lots of cross-party conversations. 
 I am talking about an extension of the usual problem of trespassers. The previous Conservative Government introduced tough laws, which have frequently been effective—albeit at the last minute when the police back up arrives—to deal with trespassers. The law is there and can be enforced. If something similar to the new clauses is not in the Bill, we shall not be able to deal with the new variant of the problem. If a loophole in the law exists, travellers will get through it. 
 I hope that the Minister understands the importance of the problem. I have received more letters about the travellers on Pennypot lane than about the war on Iraq, not just from people in the village of Chobham, but from neighbouring villages too. I know that the same sort of thing is happening in other constituencies. The problem is growing and I hope that the Minister recognises that it must be dealt with. It should be dealt with in the Bill because that provides the opportunity to deal with antisocial behaviour. I hope that the Government will table their own similar clause if new clause 11 is not perfectly worded.

Dari Taylor: I have tremendous sympathy for what has been said in relation to new clauses 5 and 11. The way in which they have been introduced by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath has been to the point and valuable. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister responds to them. I see both
 new clauses defining a clear power to prevent unauthorised parking or camping.
 There is a serious problem in Thornaby in my constituency. Travellers come at least twice, sometimes three times, a year. They move on to any small, green spaces and cause an enormous nuisance. Those spaces, which are in a tight urban setting, are left in the most disgusting condition. I am not referring just to human waste, but to wheel ruts in the grass where children often have been playing football. They can no longer play there, as the grass and the land must be sorted out. 
 The noise of not only humans, but of generators is also a problem. They make a formidable sound when they are next to one's garden fence. One has to hear it to believe it. Travellers are, on the whole, unprepared to be persuaded to move elsewhere. In my constituency, we have a travellers' park, but they will not use the site. They want to park wherever they feel it is convenient for them. I, therefore, have tremendous sympathy with both the proposed new clauses. 
 The police and the local authority in my constituency are proactive and will use their muscle, as well as their personal commitment, to move people on. Even then, it takes two or three days to move them. I know elderly people who are virtually demented about the problem. They sit up all night 
 because they are so frightened of these people, and it is true that crime rises considerably while they are around. 
 The proposed new clauses are about despoiling and misusing land. I am not saying that the travellers have a way of life that we want to reduce in any way, but nor do we want them to reduce the quality of life of our constituents. I hope that the Minister takes the proposed new clauses on board and supports them. I am anxious to hear his response.

John Randall: I think that I may be interrupted during my speech, but never mind.
 I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath. In my dealings with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), she has always been professional and reasonable, so I am fortunate. 
 Like everybody else, most of my constituents get fed up hearing excuses. My local authority and the police division in Hillingdon have, over the past year or so, been active. They have successfully reduced the incidence of antisocial behaviour, but unfortunately it is still going on. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.